Vaderisnothayden

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I don't think the jedi are supposed to get women pregnant. I think in some EU thing some jedi got disciplined by the order for getting a woman pregnant. 

I'm still glad he let them have sex, despite the unpleasant implications. Otherwise you might get paedophile jedi knights preying on the padawans/younglings and Yoda trying to cover up the scandal.

I don't think Jedi should have sex because, again, they are supposed to be totally selfless, they ARE the light side of the force, sex is a loving bond between two people, Jedi are supposed to equally distribute their love to all life through the force. Again, my interpretation.

I think it's seriously unhealthy to ban people from having sex. Not to mention unnatural.

The Jedi way of life could be considered unnatural. Aren't priests not supposed to have sex either? (i.e. they can't get married and sex before marriage is supposedly bad. Sorry I know nothing about organized religion) I always saw the Jedi as religious figures, like Priests or Monks, that lead a very specific lifestyle not everyone is cut out for.

I disagree with the priest practice too. I think keeping priests celibate has done a lot of harm to the catholic church. I don't think the jedi, who are presented as if kids should look up to them, should be presented doing anything like that, whether no sex or just no relationships. It's a damaging message to promote.  

Moth3r said:

I've always thought of force sensitivity as something anyone can develop with training, but some are naturally stronger than others (and this strength is hereditary).

The ban on marriage is a prequel idea; I don't really pay much attention to that.

I think early on force sensitivity was treated as something anyone could develop, but I think for a long while the idea has been that some people are born as force sensitives and those who are not just don't have it.

Ghost said:

Avatar will never be in the same conversation as SW.  The plot of Avatar is to weak.  In 5-10 years, when CG improves, Avatar will fade away.  Who is going to watch Avatar on a 2-D TV? 

Avatar is so overated its killing me.

 

Hear hear! I agree with all of that. Though 2d tvs may be replaced by 3d ones. Still Avatar will be forgotten in time. It's just the flavor of the moment.

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I don't think the jedi are supposed to get women pregnant. I think in some EU thing some jedi got disciplined by the order for getting a woman pregnant. 

I'm still glad he let them have sex, despite the unpleasant implications. Otherwise you might get paedophile jedi knights preying on the padawans/younglings and Yoda trying to cover up the scandal.

I don't think Jedi should have sex because, again, they are supposed to be totally selfless, they ARE the light side of the force, sex is a loving bond between two people, Jedi are supposed to equally distribute their love to all life through the force. Again, my interpretation.

I think it's seriously unhealthy to ban people from having sex. Not to mention unnatural.

Octorox said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

Wtf has happened to Star Wars?

I think it was clear that Anakin's love of Padme was a bit selfish for a Jedi, he NEEDED her to function (I can't live without her), that's why he was willing to seek Palpy's help. Jedi aren't intended to be something that everyone should emulate, the are an elite force deeply committed to providing a certain service. Attachment is forbidden because Jedi must be able to put all of their passion into service (i.e. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one). Remember that unconditional love is ok, Jedi must channel all of their love into the force, i.e. into all living things, equally. They are intended to be entirely selfless beings, with no "person" persay. Lucas is not saying romantic love is bad, he is saying it is bad for a Jedi. Being a Jedi isn't just getting to use the force and smack people around with a saber you know. This is just my interpretation. I'm not trying to defend the prequels, just saying I think this is the idea and I think it would have worked out well if Lucas had communicated it better.

Whatever way you look at it, ROTS beats you over the head with a big love-is-bad message. Yoda doesn't condemn attachment just for Jedi. He condemns it outright. And anybody who loved somebody might be willing to seek questionable help if that was the only way to save them. I do't think it's necessarily the mark of an unhealthy love. As for jedi not being intended to be something everyone should emulate, unfortunately the films aren't that clear about that and many people could get the idea the jedi are something to emulate. I'm not sure what Lucas's intention is there, but I think it's quite possible he might view the jedi as ideals to be emulated. I think the distinction between selfish and unselfish love, while possibly important to Lucas, doesn't work as regards the film's message. ROTS does come across as condemning romantic love in general.

Warbler said:

I really not sure how that is an old stereotype.  I've seen very few instances in fiction where whites were turned into nonwhites.   To me it makes sense that Jake is a leader in the battle.   The enemy are the humans,  Jake knows the humans and their technology better than any of the Navi would.

There are many instances in fiction where whites have lived among non-whites as one of them. Biological transformation not necessary. Judging by what I've heard, Jake becomes the coolest Navi and eventually their leader, a clear example of the stereotype.

This article is kind of talking aboit what I'm talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

I don't think the jedi are supposed to get women pregnant. I think in some EU thing some jedi got disciplined by the order for getting a woman pregnant. 

I'm still glad he let them have sex, despite the unpleasant implications. Otherwise you might get paedophile jedi knights preying on the padawans/younglings and Yoda trying to cover up the scandal.

I think that's about it. Emotional attachment is an evil, you know. We got that message loud and clear in ROTS, when Annie went evil and killed kids all because he was in love with Padme and thus wanted to save her. Attachment leads to the dark side. Love is evil and makes you kill kiddies.

Wtf has happened to Star Wars?

cap said:

Force sensitivity is an inherited trait.

So of the people with the greatest potential to become Jedi, most would be the offspring of Jedi... except that Jedi are forbidden to marry, and presumably to reproduce.

Do the Jedi want to limit the power of future generations of the Jedi order?  Why do they limit their own growth this way?

 People in the prequelverse are dumb. That's all there is to it.

And btw, back some years ago Lucas said the Jedi are allowed to have sex.

I don't know. I find Lucas's present neck hard to get used to.

Octorox said:

I had one problem with Avatar, and that was that I thought the quick acceptance of Jake as the leader towards the end of the movie dumbed down the Navi culture. He didn't even have to apologize, all he had to do was tame this dragon and suddenly they were all over him, personally I don't really think Jake should be able to master that culture and become the leader just like that. Cameron wanted us to see the Navi as a complex culture with a different way of life than our own and I think that scene really made it seem as if Jake was "superior" to them. I thought they had reason to distrust Jake and he was, in many ways, using them. I think rather than the "this is our land" speech (is it really his land?) we should have seen some sort of apology and Jake should have been accepted into their culture and fought with them but not suddenly the leader of all the Navi. Just my two cents. Otherwise I really enjoyed the movie.

Yeah, that's an old racist stereotype that goes white-guys-are-superior-and-make-better-non-whites-than-the-non-whites-themselves.

Warbler said:

I think Avatar is more of an allegory to what happened with the Native Americans. The Na-vi, clearly resembled the Native Americans more than they do Iraqis.

Yeah, but Cameron has basically said Avatar is supposed to have a message about Iraq.

A friend who saw the movie told me that the human guy who becomes Navi becomes the coolest of the Navi. That's an old racist cliche. The cliche basically goes White guy goes in among the non-whites and he's the best among them, because you know, whites are superior. Like I said, racist. Funny that Cameron would do that while trying to be so politically correct.

Here's another column on the message of the film.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

 Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

A very politically motivated story about "Avatar" over at CNN...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/11/avatar.movie.blues/index.html

 

"Other fans have expressed feelings of disgust with the human race"

Yeah, I said the movie is anti-human. It seems to be big with the message that humans are bad and nonexistent aliens are soooo much better. Fuck that.

TheBoost said:

So... JRR Tolkien. Pretty good writer from all reports.

He made a classic work "The Hobbit," and then went and wrote some sequals, perhaps you've heard of them, "The Lord of the Rings."

But, when he made LOTR, "The Hobbit" no longer fit his vision. He went back and made, for lack of a better word, a "Special Edition" of it, where he changed a major scene involving his hero, a ring, and a little dude named Gollum.

Because of these changes, the original work that made him famous and allowed him to write LOTR was forever altered, and The Original Uncut Hobbit (The OUH) is available only to a small market of rabid collectors.

And yet I've never heard anyone complain about Tokien's actions (and I'm not complainig here). But what is the fundamental difference between what the Professor did, and what that one dude with the beard and the flannels did to his work?

Films are different from books. They work differently and thus it's ok to apply different standards to them. I allow authors of on-paper fiction a lot more leeway with their work than I allow tv/film creators, who after all are only one among the many people involved in making "their" works. Middle Earth was all JRRT (except his son's posthumous edits in the Simarillion). The OOT is way more than just Mr Lucas.

Neeson as Hannibal is a pretty funny idea, but since it's Neeson I'm ok with it.

vote_for_palpatine said:

I am an atheist, but I have no problem with religion. Your life, your choice to believe what you want. After all, I know just as much about the existence of a god or gods as one who believes - that is to say, nothing at all. It is as much of a leap of faith for me to say that there definitely is no god as it is for a believer to say that there definitely is.

That said, Pat Robertson once again does his level best to convince those on the fence that religion is a breeding ground for morons. To wit:

"They (Haitians) were under the heel of the French...and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you'...and so, the devil said 'Okay, it's a deal' and kicked the French out,"

What an asshat.

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-news-haitiquake-patrobertson0113,0,5284708.story

People can be religious without being anything like Mr Robertson.

What he's doing is basically blaming the Haitians for freeing themselves from slavery. It's based on an old Haitian legend, but that doesn't excuse it. This isn't the first time the Haitians were blamed for freeing themselves, either. It gets thrown at them a lot.

Is that really what he's saying? I think it's not very clear what he means.

Danny Glover is a good actor, but he's one of these actors whose films I try to avoid, like Mel Gibson, because of their attitudes. Meeting with Chavez, protesting Israeli films being shown at the Toronto film festival, this sort of thing doesn't endear an actor to me. I wish so many actors didn't have dumb attitudes.

skyjedi2005 said:

The bayformers films made tons and are garbage, by Lucas own way of judging things those must be great films too.

quote: Experts now predict that 3-D will become the new multiplex standard within five years. This will be as dramatic a shift as when the “talkies” killed off silent movies in the early 20th century.

This was what I was worried about.

Ric Olie said:

 

What I absolutely cannot do is attack people. 

 Which makes Ric likable. Other people should try to follow Ric's style.

C3PX said:

Ziz said:

When the Ang Lee Hulk came out, everyone was crying "too much talking, not enough action".  When the Ed Norton Hulk came out, everyone as crying "too much action, not enough character development".

Ya can't win.

Yeah you can, just make a movie that isn't shit. As easy as that. Unfortunately, both Hulk films were shit. No reason they had to be shit, but they were. No reason they couldn't have won, but they didn't.

 

 

I agree. Those were really crappy films. It may be that Hulk is something that's hard to do right. It's not standard superhero stuff. Hulk was never a favorite of mine, but I'd still like to see it done right. But most superhero films don't seem to be done right.

V said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

V said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

But I was pissed off about Samuel L Jackson being Nick Fury. I think it's racist to change the race of a character, at least if the character is well-established, important and popular.

 

No, its racist to say that every comic book character should only be played by actors of the same race.  Skin color doesn't matter, talent does.  I think Denzel Washington would be an outstanding Two-Face, but people like you would never get past that he's not the same color as the character from the comics. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

And why are they not using the classic character that was important for so long instead of some recent invention?

 

They did. 

 

 

And he was terrible.  The Ultimate version of Nick Fury is not only black, but is modeled after Jackson.  They couldn't have chosen a better candidate. 

No, its racist to say that every comic book character should only be played by actors of the same race.  Skin color doesn't matter, talent does. 

I'm sorry but that's absolute bullshit. Characters should be kept faithful to what they are. Black characters should not be made white and white characters should not be made black, etc. There's nothing racist about insisting on some faithfulness to the source material.

And so what if an attempt at doing the original Nick Fury went wrong before. That hardly proves it has to go wrong. With a different actor and a different script it could be quite different. 

And if they want to do Marvel they should do proper Marvel, not this "Ultimate" bullshit.

 

 

Being truly faithful would be getting the core of the character right, whether or not the actor is the same race.  It's the inside that counts, not the outside.  And if you want them to be your idea of faithful, that's exactly what they're doing by casting Jackson- black actor for black character.  But you still can't get past the fact that the Ultimate Fury is black.  You want Fury to be white because that's the only way you will accept him. 

Just because the original Fury was white doesn't mean they're chained and bound to making the character white in the movies.  The original Hulk had gray skin, the original Batman killed criminals, and the original Wolverine was a highly-evolved wolf but all those characters changed over time, just like Fury.  Doesn't matter if the Ultimate Fury's been around for a much shorter time, it's a version of the character than Favreau chose to go with.  And rightfully so, because the Ultimate Nick Fury is basically Sam Jackson as a comic book character, and Jackson playing him in the movies is pretty goddamn faithful. 

I don't have any problem with the Ultimate Fury being black. Don't make assumptions about me based on not knowing a thing about me. But I do have a problem with Marvel films being based on this new-fangled Ultimate stuff. It should be quite understandable that I would want Marvel movies to be based on the classic stuff I grew up with and not some new stuff I don't care about.

As it is, I came to this thread not having a clue that there was any such thing as a black SLJ-based Ultimate Fury and when I was told about it I wondered why are they using this new Ultimate stuff instead of the classic stuff?

I'd heard some things about this Ultimate stuff before (though not about their Nick Fury) and I haven't been positively inclined towards it. My attachment is to the original Marvel, not some new-fangled thing that popped up after I quit reading Marvel when Marvel stuff was getting shittier.

Being truly faithful would be getting the core of the character right, whether or not the actor is the same race.  It's the inside that counts, not the outside. 

A person's race is part of who they are. If you want to be faithful to the material you keep major details like race or gender consistent. I don't think it would be right to cast a white man as Storm and by the same token I don't think it would be right to cast a black woman as Spiderman. Not that Tobey Maguire is any use in the role.

And if you want them to be your idea of faithful, that's exactly what they're doing by casting Jackson- black actor for black character. 

Sure. If you want to do the Ultimate Fury instead of the classic one. But I still can't see why they want to do the new Ultimate stuff rather than the classic stuff that made the legend. It's kind of like choosing the SE over the OOT.

Just because the original Fury was white doesn't mean they're chained and bound to making the character white in the movies.  The original Hulk had gray skin, the original Batman killed criminals, and the original Wolverine was a highly-evolved wolf but all those characters changed over time, just like Fury. 

They're bound and chained to keep to something like what's in the comics. And I think they should base the movies on the classic stuff that made the legend rather than new-fangled Ultimate stuff. As far as I can tell, Fury didn't change into Ultimate Fury. Rather, Ultimate Fury is a separate character from a splinter line of Marvel. They had a choice whether to go with the classic stuff that made the legend or go with a new thing. I'd prefer the classic stuff. I don't know this SLJ Fury, but I grew up with the original Nick Fury, so it shouldn't be hard to understand me preferring to see him portrayed on the big screen rather than the character I don't know. And not portrayed on the big screen by Hasselhoff.

Doesn't matter if the Ultimate Fury's been around for a much shorter time,

But it does matter. The original Fury is the one that made the legend. He's the Original.

xhonzi said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

xhonzi:

I usually don't say much to him because I feel there is little point trying to convince him that he's in the wrong.

By in the wrong do you mean mistaken in views? Like about Star Wars or films or something? Because people certainly seem to feel it's ok to tell me my views are mistaken (and they're right in that, there's nothing wrong with telling anybody their views are mistaken), but I find that some people find it terribly offensive if I return the favor and try to tell somebody else their view is mistaken by debating with their reasoning. Also, I find that some people seem to find it offensive if I defend my views. If somebody comes along and tries to prove my view is mistaken and I respond by trying to prove their view is mistaken and that mine is in fact not mistaken, somehow what they do is considered ok but what I do is not.   

To answer your question: No, it's not your opinions I'm saying "make you in the wrong."  I respect your and others' right to your own opinions.  It's the previously made accusation that you dispense them with such force and vigor as to be a jerk.  That's what I meant by saying you are in the wrong.  You're welcome to your opinion.  No one can change your mind for you, and you violently remind us of that all of the time.  It seems that you react to anyone else's opinion as a threat to yours so you have to shut them down.

There's conversing, there's debating, there's arguing and then there's what you do.  Maybe it's unintentional.  Maybe it's our misreading of your posts, but I do think you come across this way to a large number of the regulars here on the board.  Maybe you need to re-read your posts before submitting them.  Maybe you need to take a debate class.

Perhaps you think I have crossed a line into rudeness again.  Perhaps I have.  But my intent here is not to offend you, but to help you understand why you don't get along with a lot of people here so that maybe you can make some tweaks to your online persona.  I really do enjoy reading your counterpoint opinion in most cases.  In some cases I agree with you, but I always enjoy seeing differing opinions.  I starting reading/posting in the forums here to 1) Find like minded SW fans and hear them voice and reconfirm my opinions and 2) Find unlike minded SW fan's, hear their opinions, and more importantly, have them help me understand why they hold those opinions.  Now I also come here to 3) have a good time with my virtual friends and 4) insinuate that Gaffer is, in fact, a beautiful woman (which he is!). 

I think most people here can appreciate that not everyone will agree with them.  I agree with C3PX a lot, but he uses a certain unword from time to time which causes me to discipline him by putting him on my IGNORE list for a day or so.  I almost never agree with Warbler, but I still like to hear his side of the discussion.  Ric... well, Ric is Ric.  And Frink is Frink.  Or maybe I mean to say that Ric is Frink and Frink is Ric... I don't know.

What I mean is, maybe stop overcompensating.  You have said before that you're entitled to your opinion and you believe in giving it strongly.  As I have said before, be a little more aware of other people and it will make the forum here more enjoyable for all of us.

This is the post I said I wouldn't post because I doubted there was much point in trying to convince you that you are the source of your own grief here.  Please prove me wrong by thinking about what I said and maybe making some New Years resolutions to make some improvements.  I think you're already showing a softer side of VIHN in some of you last posts in this thread.

Most Sincerely,
xhonzi

I don't think you're being rude here. Your intention is clearly not aggressive.

It's the previously made accusation that you dispense them with such force and vigor as to be a jerk. 

I express my opinions emphatically and with feeling because that's who I am. I'm an emphatic person who feels things strongly. What needs to be made clear is that I am already toning down my posts almost more than I can bear. It would be impossible for me to post any less emphatically than I do now. And my being emphatic is not meant as an attack on anyone. I don't think people should take it personally when someone disagrees with them emphatically. They should save being offended for when there's actual personal attacks, which is something I try to avoid except when dealing with those who have attacked me.

It seems that you react to anyone else's opinion as a threat to yours so you have to shut them down.

I'm not trying to shut anyone down. I'm just trying to defennd my opinions. Let's say I state an opinion, then somebody else comes along and basically tells me my opinion is mistaken. It shouldn't be hard to understand that I would want to defend my opinion. That requires countering their argument. That's all I'm doing.

Maybe you need to re-read your posts before submitting them. 

I already do that.

Maybe it's our misreading of your posts

I suspect that for some reason some people are misunderstanding the intent and mood behind my posts, because people who know me well don't get bent out of shape by my discussion style.

Ric is Frink

Which is a pity, because I like Ric.

What I mean is, maybe stop overcompensating. 

Overcompensating in what way? I am already (and have long been) compensating frantically for my tendency to be emphatic. My tendency to be emphatic is not any sort of overcompensating. It's just my nature.

As I have said before, be a little more aware of other people and it will make the forum here more enjoyable for all of us.

I am a lot more aware of others here than I think I'm generally given credit for. Quite simply, I am not being understood.

in trying to convince you that you are the source of your own grief here. 

I'm afraid I see the source of my grief here as the limitations of human nature and the capacity of people to misunderstand those different from themselves. Because it is evident from things you and others have said that I am being entirely misunderstood. 

Please prove me wrong by thinking about what I said and maybe making some New Years resolutions to make some improvements. 

Oh I am thinking about what you're saying. You've presented it in a civilized manner and thus deserve consideration. But as for improvments, as I have indicated, those efforts have already been made and if they weren't I'd be more emphatic than I am. I will of course look for any opportunities that present themselves to improve things further.

I appreciate you trying to come to terms with me.

Warbler said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

Political discussion is not the purpose of art nor is it what makes art worthwhile.

Planet of The Apes? 

Several episodes of the Star Trek series? 

See my original reply to Anchorhead. Of course individual works of art push politics, but that doesn't make pushing politics what art in general is all about.

Anchorhead said:

skyjedi2005 said:

Maybe he should have stated as his opinion that....

Actually, all he ever states is that his opinions are the only ones which are valid & correct. When someone disagrees, they're wrong.  If they disagree a second time, they're attacking him unfairly. He's always the victim. Textbook troll behavior.

Stop inventing things. You can disagree with me as many times as you like and I won't say you're attacking me unfairly, unless you choose to get personally offensive, as some peiople do, and as you are doing right now. And everybody who argues in favor of their opinions believes their opinions are valid and correct and that opposing ones are mistaken (didn't you just tell me my opinion was "incorrect" -classic example). When you defend your opinion and debate its merits against an opposing opinion, you are saying "I am right. you are wrong". Some people don't admit to themselves that that's what they're doing, but really that's what's happening. If you say "I disagree" you are saying "I think your opinion is wrong". As for the question of victimhood, the reality is that I get a lot of shit from people I wasn't giving shit to. The present discussion being a classic example. You said my opinion was wrong. I disagreed. You then made a personal attack on me without me having made any attack on you. It is in fact you who are trolling.

If they disagree a second time, they're attacking him unfairly.

Actually, that was the attitude you took in one of our discussions. I disagreed with you and you started getting heated. A little further on in the discussion you suddenly blew your top, accused me of trolling and baiting (with no basis that I could see) and stormed out of the discussion. You did precisely what you accuse me of doing. You took offense at ordinary disagreement with your opinion and acted like you had been unfairly wronged.

Neither hulk film was much use.

V said:

Vaderisnothayden said:

But I was pissed off about Samuel L Jackson being Nick Fury. I think it's racist to change the race of a character, at least if the character is well-established, important and popular.

 

No, its racist to say that every comic book character should only be played by actors of the same race.  Skin color doesn't matter, talent does.  I think Denzel Washington would be an outstanding Two-Face, but people like you would never get past that he's not the same color as the character from the comics. 

Vaderisnothayden said:

And why are they not using the classic character that was important for so long instead of some recent invention?

 

They did. 

 

 

And he was terrible.  The Ultimate version of Nick Fury is not only black, but is modeled after Jackson.  They couldn't have chosen a better candidate. 

No, its racist to say that every comic book character should only be played by actors of the same race.  Skin color doesn't matter, talent does. 

I'm sorry but that's absolute bullshit. Characters should be kept faithful to what they are. Black characters should not be made white and white characters should not be made black, etc. There's nothing racist about insisting on some faithfulness to the source material.

And so what if an attempt at doing the original Nick Fury went wrong before. That hardly proves it has to go wrong. With a different actor and a different script it could be quite different. 

And if they want to do Marvel they should do proper Marvel, not this "Ultimate" bullshit.